In my experience, -Os produced faster code on gcc-2.95 than -O2 or -O3.
On what CPU? The effect of different optimisations varies
hugely between different CPUs (and architectures).
It was not only because of cache considerations, but because gcc used
different tricks to avoid poor optimizations, and at the end, the CPU
ended executing the alternative code faster.
-Os is "as fast as you can without bloating the code size",
so that is the expected result for CPUs that don't need
special hand-holding around certain performance pitfalls.
With gcc-3.3, -Os show roughly the same performance as -O2 for me on
various programs. However, with gcc-3.4, I noticed a slow down with
-Os. And with gcc-4, using -Os optimizes only for size, even if the
output code is slow as hell. I've had programs whose speed dropped
by 70% using -Os on gcc-4.
Well you better report those! <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla>
But in some situtations, it's desirable to have the smallest possible
kernel whatever its performance. This goes for installation CDs for
instance.
There are much better ways to achieve that.
Segher
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
